POL– 412 Diplomacy: History and Practice

Ambassador Azmat Hassan

Diplomatic Prospects for Peace in the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Muhammad Asad Tashfeen

12020167
 1

The Israel-Palestine conflict is one filled with a history of complicacy, complexity, rejectionism,

frustration, broken promises, violated treaties and missed opportunities. The word peace has become

the cliché of clichés and has been used time and again to delay any serious efforts for an actual

resolution. Trust, the sine qua non of any successful resolution, has been an element missing. Distrust

and skepticism have marred attempts to resolve this decades old issue which has not only consumed

precious time but also innocent blood. All actors in this conflict are blameworthy for either causing or

allowing this festering sore on the face of international politics to endure. The Palestinians have

historically rejected making concessions and the Israelis have lied about making them. The Americans, as

mediators, have always paid lip service to a peace process while simultaneously never stopping aiding

Israel in every capacity at the expense of peace negotiations. While this conflict is given great attention

on the political front by the international community, on the humanitarian front little is done for the

Palestinian populace that suffers at the hands of a militant Israeli state which enforces blockade and

siege, segregates by constructing separation walls and fences, denies humanitarian aid to a people

caged in an open air prison, rejects international resolutions and treaties and justifies all of it in the

name of security; a term rendered as abstract as peace itself. While there is a lot to lament on, yet there

is silver lining. The conflict is known also for some concession, motivation and some very rare will for

peace; enough to make the world hope that peace is not a lost cause, yet. Diplomacy and negotiation

has at times taken us close to breakthroughs. Breakthroughs, to the achievement of which, war and

violence have not even gone close to. I will cover in this short paper a concise description of the many

failings and few victories of diplomacy on the path to peace and shall try to explain where if anywhere

can diplomacy take us from here.

 2

Although it has greatly failed to deliver, yet diplomacy is the only hope that Israel, Palestine and

the Greater Middle East have for a durable and lasting peace. It was diplomacy that led Israel to make

peace with two of its strongest neighbors; Egypt and Jordan. The core issue now, for almost two

decades is Palestine because it is the Palestinians whose problem is not just one of power politics but a

matter of survival. Israel established peace with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994. With the

Palestinians, diplomacy has been little more than a tool for procrastination and delay albeit with some

exceptions.

Before I go into the actual historic account of the negotiations, let me state what is it that has

been and is being negotiated over. The goal that is to be achieved is a two state solution. Israel illegally

occupies Palestinian territory in contravention to UNSC resolution 242. It is also building settlements in

the West Bank and East Jerusalem which are illegal under a ruling of the International Court of Justice.

Also to be resolved is the issue of the Palestinian refugees who were driven out of their land when Israel

was created in 1948. Gaza is placed under a blockade by Israel which prevents free passage of goods and

people. The Palestinians demand a separate sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital and they

demand that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 War international frontiers. The Israelis are particularly

uncompromising on Jerusalem and settlement expansion. Regarding the former they say that the whole

of Jerusalem must become the capital of the state of Israel and the settlement construction should not

hamper peace talks in any way. The Palestinians argue that if Israel doesn’t halt settlement construction

there won’t be any land left to negotiate over. Certain militant organizations in Palestine frustrated with

the peace process resort to violent acts including rocket fire and suicide bombings in the occupied

territories as well as in Israel Proper almost always resulting in an Israeli onslaught. Differences among

the Arab states have also been reasons for the failure of diplomatic initiatives.

In this peace process the US has been the most important mediator. However, the American
 3

good offices have always been especially good to the Israelis. The Israelis have held enormous sway over

every US President regardless of party or color. This is made evident by the fact that the Obama

Administration has continued the Bush Administration’s huge aid package to Israel despite paying lip

service to his strong will to resolve issues with the Muslim world in that eloquent speech in Cairo. Yet if

a two state solution is to be achieved, it cannot be done with the US out of the picture.

In the words of William B.Quandt: “Sometime in the mid-1970s the term peace process began

widely used to describe the American-led efforts to bring about a negotiated peace between Israel and

its neighbors. The phrase stuck, and ever since it has been synonymous with the gradual, step-by-step

approach to resolving one of the world’s most difficult conflicts” 1. Until the end of the 1967 war,

diplomacy had little to do with the resolution of the Israel-Palestine or the greater Arab-Israeli conflict.

More so in the case of the Palestinian conflict where serious diplomatic efforts started only in the early

1990s. The 1948 war ended with Israel occupying more territories than accorded to it in the 1948 UN

Partition Plan. The Arab states demanded that Israel withdraw to the territories defined by the UN and

that all Palestinian refugees, who had been displaced during the course of the war, be allowed to return

to their homes which were now in the state of Israel. The Israelis rejected both of these demands by

claiming that withdrawing to the UN Plan boundaries was against Israel’s military needs and that

allowing the refugees to return would threaten the Jewish nature of the state 2. After the war Egypt

controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. No initiative was taken to negotiate a peace deal

between Israel and its Arab neighbors. This resulted in cross border clashes between the Palestinians

and the Israelis and this status quo was maintained for almost two decades. Egypt’s President, Gamal

Abdel Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956 leading to the Suez Crisis. With the help of the Israelis,

Great Britain and France launched an attack on Egypt which resulted in Israel occupying the Sinai

Peninsula. International pressure forced the British and French forces to leave and Israel pulled out of
1. Quandt, William B. Introduction. Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli
Conflict since 1967. 1. Print.
2. Sela, Avraham. "Arab-Israeli Conflict." The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East.
Ed. Avraham Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002. pp. 58-121.
 4

Sinai where UN Emergency Forces were installed on both sides of the border to ensure that violence

would not erupt again.

In 1967 Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran, and Arab forces made menacing moves which led

Israel to believe that the Arab nations were preparing for war 3. This resulted in what is known as the Six

Day War. Israel launched preemptive attacks on Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan and within six days

occupied the Golan Heights, Gaza, the Sinai, and the West Bank, including Jerusalem 3. To this point in

the history of the conflict no serious diplomatic attempts for peace had been made either by the parties

involved directly in the conflict or by the international community. The players directly involved did not

move towards a peace treaty of any kind because of their uncompromising and rigid attitudes; the

Israelis not wanting to give up any land and the Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs unwilling to accept

Israel’s status as a state and demanding its total destruction. The international community was too

involved in the Cold War to be able to pay much attention to the Middle East alone. However, the 1967

war led to international recognition that this was indeed a problem that needed to be dealt with. The

UN passed UNSC Resolution 242 which called for a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian conflict. It

declared forceful acquisition of territories by Israel as illegal, demanded a resolution of the issue of

refugees and stated that all states in the region had the right to exist in peace and security. Differences

have existed over the interpretation of the resolution regarding the part requiring Israel to withdraw to

pre-war boundaries.

In 1970 the US presented the Rogers Plan which proposed a state of non belligerency between

Israel and its neighbors and a peace framework in accordance with UNSC Resolution 242. The Rogers

Plan was accepted immediately by Egypt but rejected by Israel. Even Anwar Sadat’s surprise move to

expel Soviet officials didn’t manage to get Israel into peace talks. Had Israel entered peace negotiations,

3. Carter, Jimmy. Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. 5. Print.

 5

the 1973 war could have been avoided.

The first success for diplomacy in the conflict came when the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty

was signed as a result of the 1978 Camp David Accords by President Anwar Sadat and Prime Minister

Menachem Begin in Washington DC in the presence of US President Jimmy Carter.

The Madrid Conference was held in 1991 in Spain as an initiative taken by US President George

H.W Bush. The conference was planned to be a prelude to direct bilateral talks between Israel and the

Arab states. The conference did lead to peace talks but they were slow paced and failed to achieve any

significant results. Talks were held secretly in Norway between officials of the Israeli government and

the PLO in order to determine the conditions necessary for the establishment of a Palestinian state in

light of UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 and led to the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords. Israeli Foreign Minister

Shimon Peres and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 for their

diplomatic efforts. But all peace talks broke down when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was

assassinated in 1995. Despite the talks that were held much was not achieved as Israel didn’t halt

settlement construction and suicide bombings ensued as a result of increasing frustration among the

Palestinians.

Smaller initiatives such as the Hebron Agreement (1997) and the Wye River Memorandum

(1998) were put forth in order to move a peaceful resolution further in accordance with the results

reached in the Oslo Accords.

The Camp David Summit 2000 was held in Washington as an initiative taken by US President Bill

Clinton in a bid to resolve the conflict near the end of his second term in office. The talks were held

between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. Arafat was offered

major portions of the occupied territories in exchange for most of the Jewish settlements in the West
 6

Bank and Israeli control over some of the West Bank which would result in some serious

restrictions on the Palestinians in their new state. This was termed as the Clinton Parameters.

Arafat rejected the offer and was blamed by Bill Clinton for causing the peace talks to fail. Talks

were again held in 2001 in what is known as the Taba Summit in light of the Clinton Parameters.

Israel made some concessions and said that it would forego its initial position of control over

some parts of the West Bank. The Palestinian negotiators accepted this offer. However, soon

after that, elections were held in Israel and the conservative party Likud came to power while

no agreement had yet been finalized in the Taba talks. This was the closest that the conflict

ever came to a resolution. Referring to the Taba Summit Professor Noam Chomsky said that it

was “the one break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism”4

The latest peace framework is the 2002 Road Map for Peace. It has been put in place by

a quartet comprising the US, the EU, the UN and Russia. It was presented upon the

appointment of Mahmoud Abbas as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority as both the US

and Israel were unwilling to work with Arafat. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and

dismantled its settlements there as part of the Road Map but its settlements elsewhere

continued to grow. Settlement freeze is the most important requirement from Israel in the

Road Map. The Palestinian Authority failed to curtail acts of terrorism into Israel as rift grew

between Fatah and Hamas after Hamas won the 2006 elections. A ceasefire was brokered

between Israel and Hamas by Egypt in 2008 but it broke apart in December of the same year

and led to the Gaza War as America waited for President-elect Barack Obama to take office.

4. Chomsky, Noam. "Noam Chomsky v. Alan Dershowitz: A Debate on the Israeli-Palestinian

Conflict." Democracynow.org. Democracy Now!, 23 Dec. 2005. Web. 16 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.democracynow.org/2005/12/23/noam_chomsky_v_alan_dershowitz_a>.
 7

The Obama Administration has put pressure on both Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and

President Mahmoud Abbas to commence direct talks but there is no hope for progress until and

unless Israel halts construction of settlements which is the Palestinian side’s most important

condition and some kind of power sharing compromise is reached between Fatah and Hamas

who are the power holders in the West Bank and Gaza respectively.

Throughout this limping peace process the Palestinians have lived in horrible living

conditions, have had improper healthcare facilities, have suffered huge casualties in war and

violence, have seen their lands being cantonized and have been forced to live in enclosed and

walled spaces through war, peace, uprising and humanitarian crises.

So this is the current state of affairs: there is a rightwing government in Israel, the

Palestinian leadership is divided and the Obama Administration seems to have run out of ideas.

But if one takes into account the current situation in the Middle East, there is hope yet as we

stand at a very critical juncture in the history of the conflict. Uprisings are breaking out left,

right and center. The whole region is in upheaval. Two nations have managed to get rid of their

dictators. These states and others that might follow are likely to bring into power popular

regimes that will voice the concerns of the people and will be pro-Palestinian rather than being

puppets for foreign powers. The only significant ally that Israel had other than the US was Egypt

under Hosni Mubarak. Israel’s list of friends has run very thin especially after its attack on Gaza

in 2008-09 which resulted in large numbers of civilian casualties. This has caused its support to

plunge among European states. Israel’s relations with Turkey also dropped to an all time low

after it attacked the Turkish humanitarian flotilla headed for Gaza in May, 2010.
 8

The changing environment of the Middle East will result in Israel being surrounded by

hostile nations. It is in Israel’s interest to make decisive moves towards a peaceful final

settlement to grant statehood to the Palestinians in exchange for the security that it craves so

dearly. The onus is upon the Obama Administration to convey it to Israel that enough is enough

and that Israel must permanently freeze all settlement construction. On the Palestinian side it is

important to note that the divide between Hamas and Fatah is rendering any peace talks futile.

Both parties need to understand that the divide between them is not in the interest of the

Palestinians at large. There is some silver lining here as Hamas and Fatah officials have had

some meetings in order to find common ground for negotiations 5. If Hamas is left out of peace

talks all together the negotiations cannot hope to achieve anything as Hamas has become more

popular among the Palestinians since the Gaza war6. The Americans and Israelis must agree to

sitting down on the table with Hamas. Hamas is no longer a purely militant organization that

stands for Israel’s total destruction. Their leader, Khaled Meshaal, has actually said that Hamas

is willing to talk to the Obama Administration given that their legitimate demands are

met.7They have shown their capacity to withhold agreements by abiding by the Egyptian

brokered ceasefire in 2008.

5. Sudam, Mohamed. "Fatah and Hamas Sign Reconciliation Deal." Breaking News, Business News,
Financial and Investing News & More | Reuters.co.uk. 23 Mar. 2008. Web. 17 Apr. 2011.
<http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/03/23/uk-palestinians-yemen-deal-
idUKL23831120080323>.
6. Butters, Andrew Lee. "In the Aftermath of Gaza, Hamas Becomes Harder to Ignore." Breaking
News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. TIME, 28 Feb.
2009. Web. 17 Apr. 2011.
7. Ginsberg, Jodie. "Hamas Leader Ready to Talk to Obama." Business & Financial News, Breaking
US & International News | Reuters.com. Reuters, 08 Nov. 2008. Web. 17 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/11/08/us-palestinians-usa-meshaal-
idUSTRE4A71AY20081108>.
 9

The EU8 and France9 have shown their readiness to talk to Hamas given that it accepts

the peace process. The Americans must also realize that it is not possible for a peace deal to

materialize while Hamas is completely left out of peace talks.

Despite Israel’s war crimes and rejection of UN resolutions, it continues to receive large

amounts of military aid from the US. Words alone will not be sufficient to convince the Israelis.

If the US wants to bring Israel to the negotiating table it will have to gradually start cutting

military aid to Israel. It must be made clear to Israel that if it does not come to the table now, it

will find itself in a very complicated position; with pro-Palestinian regimes coming to power in

all of its neighboring states and its only ally across the Atlantic starting to show teeth. Israel

must be ensured of its security and Hamas must be told that there will be zero tolerance for

acts of violence. The quartet which got together to establish the Road Map for peace can help

in convincing Israel and the Arab League can talk to Hamas and Fatah to show them that

reconciliation not violence is the only way forward. When all parties agree to negotiate, a final

status peace deal based on the framework provided by the Taba talks of 2001 must be

implemented.

If this opportunity provided by the upheaval and revolt in the Arab world is missed by

the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Americans then another one might not come along for a

8. Dombey, Daniel. "EU Ready to Talk to Syria and Hamas." Ft.com. Financial Times, 1 Sept. 2006.
Web. 17 Apr. 2011. <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9fa16d16-39de-11db-90bb-
0000779e2340.html#axzz1JlR2KZvk>.
9. "FRANCE 24 - France Ready to Talk to Hamas 'when They Accept Peace Process'" FRANCE 24 -
International Breaking News and Headlines. France24, 21 Jan. 2009. Web. 17 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.france24.com/en/20090120-france-ready-talk-peace-hamas-israel-kouchner>.
 10

very long time. If a diplomatic initiative is not taken now and Israel continues its policy of

rejectionism, the US continues its policy of unconditional support for Israel and Hamas and

8. Dombey, Daniel. "EU Ready to Talk to Syria and Hamas." Ft.com. Financial Times, 1 Sept. 2006.
Web. 17 Apr. 2011. <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9fa16d16-39de-11db-90bb-
0000779e2340.html#axzz1JlR2KZvk>.
9. "FRANCE 24 - France Ready to Talk to Hamas 'when They Accept Peace Process'" FRANCE 24 -
International Breaking News and Headlines. France24, 21 Jan. 2009. Web. 17 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.france24.com/en/20090120-france-ready-talk-peace-hamas-israel-kouchner>.
 11

Fatah remain divided and distrustful of each other then security, peace and statehood will

remain myths to be spoken of, sometimes thought about, seldom worked towards and never

achieved.